I understand not being reckless but as the others have said full tosses and half trackers should be dispatched at this level.

Whilst that's true, it's also part of the learning process for a bloke like Root, who has curbed what's supposed to be a fairly attacking natural nature (this series is the first I've seen of him so I wouldn't know) and has kind of batted himself into a hole. If those balls were bowled to the more experienced players you'd expect them to be put away.

Having said that, in the medium to long term I think England's rate of scoring will be a problem for them, but it hasn't been this series because of the combination of their bowling so well and Australia batting badly.

Whilst that's true, it's also part of the learning process for a bloke like Root, who has curbed what's supposed to be a fairly attacking natural nature (this series is the first I've seen of him so I wouldn't know) and has kind of batted himself into a hole. If those balls were bowled to the more experienced players you'd expect them to be put away.

Having said that, in the medium to long term I think England's rate of scoring will be a problem for them, but it hasn't been this series because of the combination of their bowling so well and Australia batting badly.

Yeah, despite opening all his junior and First Class career, Root still very much has the technique of a middle order bat IMO. He tries to counteract this by having the temperament of an opener; he's really defensive early in his innings until it gets to a point where the ball is softer and the bowlers aren't as fresh. He definitely strikes me more as someone who sees getting through the new ball as a job to be done rather than someone who actually prefers the pace on the ball and enjoys facing it.

Last edited by Prince EWS; 23-08-2013 at 06:43 AM.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

It's not about wanting to be entertained. We've batted for 44 overs at a snail pace. Add two quick wickets onto the score and we are still 195 away from the follow on score. Your allowing Clarke to keep relatively attacking fields as he still has a 400 run lead to play with instead of 350. And then at tea it's going to be about 340 but it should be about 260.

I'm not saying we should be going after the Aussies here and chasing down their total at all. Absolutely lets get in a position where we won't lose, but at this pace you are always liable to a collapse and allow Australia back in the game.

Ok, let's say those 44 overs were batted at the entertaining rate of 3.5 an over. That makes the score 154/1. Couple of quick wickets and we're still 338 behind.

At this stage of the game not losing wickets is more important than scoring runs. England's tactics should be to bat until the end of day 4 and assess the situation there.

There's two ways England can win this match - get parity-ish with Australia and induce an Aussie collapse, a la Adelaide 06, or put 650-700 on the board and win by an innings. Scoring quicker runs at this stage of the game is unlikely to make much of a difference, whereas losing wickets will.

The thing is you are forgetting that in our top 3 we have 2 guys out of form and a kid making his way in the game and everyone moaning that that kid shouldn't be opening and should be batting at 6. Is it any wonder the scoreboard isn't rattling along? Add in the Aussies have been disciplined again today and it all adds up. Well to some it does. This is arguably the best Root has looked all series as even in his big ton he should have been out early, give some credit where it is due.

Root is batting really well - no doubt about that.

Brings it back to though that England promoting Root has brought about this problem really. Or were we just blessed with Strauss as this problem has been apparent since he retired?

Ok, let's say those 44 overs were batted at the entertaining rate of 3.5 an over. That makes the score 154/1. Couple of quick wickets and we're still 338 behind.

At this stage of the game not losing wickets is more important than scoring runs. England's tactics should be to bat until the end of day 4 and assess the situation there.

There's two ways England can win this match - get parity-ish with Australia and induce an Aussie collapse, a la Adelaide 06, or put 650-700 on the board and win by an innings. Scoring quicker runs at this stage of the game is unlikely to make much of a difference, whereas losing wickets will.

I don't think it's a recent phenomenon though. England's scoring rate has been among the slowest on tests for quite a while. Often it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. Less so today than others. It becomes an issue when you're a test down or in a tight series and need a win. It hasn't much mattered this series though.

Ok, let's say those 44 overs were batted at the entertaining rate of 3.5 an over. That makes the score 154/1. Couple of quick wickets and we're still 338 behind.

At this stage of the game not losing wickets is more important than scoring runs. England's tactics should be to bat until the end of day 4 and assess the situation there.

There's two ways England can win this match - get parity-ish with Australia and induce an Aussie collapse, a la Adelaide 06, or put 650-700 on the board and win by an innings. Scoring quicker runs at this stage of the game is unlikely to make much of a difference, whereas losing wickets will.

Problem with this sort of debate is you can't judge loss of wickets. I would rather be 330/3 at the end of the day than 230/2. But we could easily be 230/8 or we could be 330 all out? Batting time does not equal no loss of wickets. What I'm trying to get out is we bat time, we still lose wickets, and we are just sort of stuck in a rut.

I don't think it's a recent phenomenon though. England's scoring rate has been among the slowest on tests for quite a while. Often it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. Less so today than others. It becomes an issue when you're a test down or in a tight series and need a win. It hasn't much mattered this series though.